This is an application filed by the petitioners anticipating arrest in Crime No.554/2014 of Pazhayangadi police station for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that on 10.5.2014 at about 6 p.m near Vengara railway gate on the railway track the accused persons three in number wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and with an intention to commit culpable homicide, the first accused beat him with a stone and caused injury to him and thereby all of them have committed the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they are innocent of the same and they have been falsely implicated in the case. Further the second petitioner has not been made accused so far as well. The custody of the petitioners is not required in connection with the investigation and no serious injury has been caused as well.
4. The application was opposed by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that second petitioner has been implicated as the third accused and investigation is still in progress.
5. Heard both sides and perused the case diary file.
6. It is seen from the case diary file that the above crime was registered on the basis of a statement given by the defacto complainant alleging offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 308 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused one Sahadra and one identifiable person. It is seen from the case diary file that all the persons have wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and it is thereafter that the injury was inflicted. The second accused was arrested and he is in custody now. The present second petitioner has been identified as the third person mentioned in the First Information Report as it was revealed during investigation and he has been implicated in the case now. Considering the over all circumstances of the case, this Court feels that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Section 438 of the Code. But this will not prevent the petitioners from surrendering before the investigating officer and on such surrender, if the investigating officer after interrogation recording their arrest and producing them before the concerned Magistrate court and on such production, if the petitioners move for regular bail, the Magistrate considering the bail application and disposing the same strictly in accordance with law. So the petitioners are not entitled to get anticipatory bail.
The application is dismissed with the above observations.
Sd/-
K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JUDGE.
cl /true copy/ P.S to Judge